Antivirus makers want you to believe they are adding artificial intelligence to their products: software that has learned how to catch malware on a device. There are two potential problems with that. Either it’s marketing hype and not really AI – or it’s true, in which case don’t forget that such systems can still be hoodwinked.

It’s relatively easy to trick machine-learning models – especially in image recognition. Change a few pixels here and there, and an image of a bus can be warped so that the machine thinks it’s an ostrich. Now take that thought and extend it to so-called next-gen antivirus.
…

The researchers from Endgame and the University of Virginia are hoping that by integrating the malware-generating system into OpenAI’s Gym platform, more developers will help sniff out more adversarial examples to improve machine-learning virus classifiers.

Although Evans believes that Endgame’s research is important, using such a method to beef up security “reflects the immaturity” of AI and infosec. “It’s mostly experimental and the effectiveness of defenses is mostly judged against particular known attacks, but doesn’t say much about whether it can work against newly discovered attacks,” he said.

“Moving forward, we need more work on testing machine learning systems, reasoning about their robustness, and developing general methods for hardening classifiers that are not limited to defending against particular attacks. More broadly, we need ways to measure and build trustworthiness in AI systems.”

The research has been summarized as a paper, here if you want to check it out in more detail, or see the upstart’s code on Github.

Two researchers from the University of Virginia have developed a new password manager prototype that works quite differently from existing password manager clients.

The research team describes their password manager — which they named Horcrux — as “a password manager for paranoids,” due to its security and privacy-focused features and a unique design used for handling user passwords, both while in transit and at rest.

There are two main differences between Horcrux and currently available password manager clients.

The first is how Horcrux inserts user credentials inside web pages. Regular password managers do this by filling in the login form with the user’s data.
…
The second feature that makes Horcrux stand out compared to other password manager clients is how it stores user credentials.

Compared to classic solutions, Horcrux doesn’t trust one single password store but spreads user credentials across multiple servers. This means that if an attacker manages to gain access to one of the servers, he won’t gain access to all of the user’s passwords, limiting the damage of any security incident.
…
More details about the Horcrux design and implementation are available in the research team’s paper, entitled “Horcrux: A Password Manager for Paranoids”.

SSL/TLS encrypts the connection between a user and a website, scrambling the data that is sent back and forth. Without SSL/TLS, someone one the same network can see data in clear text and, in this case, any password sent to CNBC.

“Worried about security? Enter your password into this @CNBC website (over HTTP, natch). What could go wrong,” Felt wrote on Twitter. “Alternately, feel free to tweet your password @ me and have the whole security community inspect it for you.”

The form also sent passwords to advertising networks and other parties with trackers on CNBC’s page, according to Ashkan Soltani, a privacy and security researcher, who posted a screenshot.

…

Despite saying the tool would not store passwords, traffic analysis showed it was actually storing them in a Google Docs spreadsheet, according to Kane York, who works on the Let’s Encrypt project.

(Posted on April 1, but this is actually a real story, as hard as that might be to believe.)

“Backdoors are complicated and impossible technical challenges and would risk everyone’s privacy,” Evans said. “But what the FBI is asking for is different from what Apple says the FBI is asking for.”

For the most part, I think the article gets things right. It is very misleading to conflate what the FBI has asked for here with a cryptographic backdoor that would indeed dangerously risk everyone’s privacy and security. I covered some of the technical aspects of this in my introductory computing course last week.

Felt, 29, who earned a computer science degree from the University of Virginia in 2008, leads the usable security team at Google working on the popular Internet browser.

…

Taking Evans’ offer for a research project was a turning point in Felt’s life, showing her something she liked that she could do well.

“It turned out that I really loved it,” she said. “I like working in privacy and security because I enjoy helping people control their digital experiences. I think of it as, ‘I’m professionally paranoid so that other people don’t need to be.’”

One of the things we’re building is a PayPal competitor–with a modest target of having a few hundred million customers. Everything in India is always on a massive scale. If you could get rid of PayPal passwords, and instead just have a fingerprint–if you could pay for goods at a store with just your fingerprint, that would simplify people’s lives a lot. It would also have the secondary effect of saving some of the security problems, like phishing, that we currently encounter. And this government database is a huge enabler.

If we already have a mandate to collect everybody’s fingerprints, why not use it in the customer’s benefit? The privacy risk is always there. That’s the law and I can’t argue with that. But if the law is already creating this risk, why not create opportunity in the same step?

University of Virginia graduate Karsten Nohl, one of the world’s most famous “white hat computer hackers,” will speak Friday at 3:30 p.m. in Rice Hall, room 130, about lessons learned from the security holes that he and fellow researchers have uncovered in mobile phones, wireless car keys and other technology used by billions of people everyday.

Nohl first made international headlines in 2008, while still a computer engineering doctoral student at U.Va., for research that exposed vulnerabilities in the world’s most popular smartcard, used by millions of people to pay fares on several major mass-transit systems around the world, including the London Underground and the Boston subway.

Such cards utilize miniscule wireless computer chips, about the size of a grain of rice, called RFIDs, short for “radio-frequency identification.” They send and receive information over short distances (generally 10 feet or less) via very low-power radio waves.

As an ethical security researcher, often called a “white hat hacker,” Nohl exposes vulnerabilities to spur improvements in the systems that he researches. He now does such work around the world as the founder and director of research at Security Research Labs in Berlin.

To prevent those with nefarious purposes from exploiting security holes he uncovers, Nohl typically withholds key details of the exploit and discloses his findings only months after sharing his research with the relevant manufacturers or trade organizations to allow them to roll out upgrades or countermeasures to mitigate the security risk.

Since graduating from U.Va. in August 2008, Nohl has gone on to discover and demonstrate two key security vulnerabilities in mobile phones – encryption flaws in both the GSM protocol that most cell phones use to communicate with cell towers, and in SIM cards, the tiny “subscriber identity module” chip in every phone that identifies and authenticates the phone.

Both discoveries generated worldwide media coverage.

As just one example of possible ramifications, the latter security hole could allow a malicious hacker to send a virus through a text message, which could then allow the hacker to eavesdrop on calls or make purchases through mobile payment systems.

“Karsten has had an outstanding impact in analyzing how cryptography gets used in the real world and demonstrating what goes wrong when important engineering principles are not followed carefully,” said computer science professor David Evans, Nohl’s former doctoral adviser and a co-organizer of Friday’s talk. “The vulnerabilities he has identified in RFID algorithms, GSM encryption and SIM cards impact billions of devices most of us use every day, and it’s really important that people understand the security weaknesses in these systems and that vendors work to improve them. Karsten’s work is a fundamental step toward those goals.”

Nohl’s talk will discuss how security exploits with real-world implications are usually enabled by not just one design flaw, but by deviations from best practices on multiple design layers. Protection designs that focus on a single security function and neglect complementary layers are more prone to compromise, Nohl will argue, with examples from his own research on three widely deployed technologies – cell phones, car keys and smartcards.

“Real-world cryptographic systems rarely meet academic expectations, with most systems being shown ‘insecure’ at some point,” Nohl said in an email description of his talk. “At the same time, our IT-driven world has not yet fallen apart, suggesting that many protection mechanisms are ‘secure enough’ for how they are employed.”

The talk will be followed by a reception in the fourth-floor atrium of Rice Hall.

The event is co-sponsored by the departments of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering, which jointly administer U.Va.’s computer engineering Program in the School of Engineering and Applied Science.

“To understand the world, you need to understand computing and programming,” Evans, who is also a computer science professor at University of Virginia, said in an email. “Without understanding computers and how they are programmed, much of the world will increasingly seem like magic.”

…

While Steve Jobs famously talked about computers as bicycles for the mind 20 years ago, computers today are far more powerful and connected worldwide as “super-tanker-sized, hypersonic spaceships of the mind,” said Evans.

“Without learning to program, you can still ride them if you are willing to remove your shoes at the security checkpoint and go where the pilot wants to go,” said Evans, “but if you want to be the one flying, you need to learn about computing.”